Discussions by Avila

[Downdraft]

Avila doesn't have anything to prove about his expertise. I pay very close attention to what he says when he says it. That's better than one "expert" I read that mentions every option so when one pans out he can say he nailed it. The folks at the NHC don't have to hype their discussions. In the end it's up to the reader what they find informative and real.

[Starburst]

There is no need to write something very long, when a mere few sentences can state the same thing. That is why I perfer Avila's discussions (and the fact that mine are also usually short also is part of the reason I perfer short ones)

Now Derek I have seen you write long discussions when there is something out there or you feel like it is going to be a complex situation in the tropics.

[beachbum_al]

I prefer short and sweet and easy to read. When they are short they are easier to read. When they are more detailed and have more jargon that I don't quite understand it is harder to read.

[Jim Cantore]

hey, Avila and Stewart know more then I do so I aint complaining

[Derek Ortt]

when mine are long, its because I am not really sure of what is going on and am trying to reason out while writing the forecast, or because something very important about the models needs to be stated, such as the model not initializing the bermuda high strong enough

[Ivanhater]

To be honest, when the discussion are to long, I skim past most of it and get to the "good parts"

[Brent]

To be honest, when the discussion are to long, I skim past most of it and get to the "good parts"

Same here.

[robbielyn]

Some people like to cut to the chase and others enjoy the scenic route. I prefer stewart. Stewart forecasts reads like he loves his job and avila reminds me of Ben Stein who plays on the Clear eyes eyedrops commercial when he says "dry eyes" in a low monotone, boring way. I guess it is good to have two types for those who want just the facts and then for those of us who like the buildup of anticipation that stewart provides. he doesn't cross the line with hype at all. but he does make it more interesting. I am not dissing

[TreasureIslandFLGal]

I think the "Statements" should be where the succint statements are placed and the "Discussions" should be were the discussion are placed.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I would think that a "discussion" should be the presentation of the conversation that was had between the pro staff regarding the current and future actions of a storm, to include the important points and justifications for why they believe it will do that.

If there is a consensus, then there can be a very short discussion, whihc only needs to point out a few facts. If there is not consensus, I would expect whoever writes it, to indicate even more track reasoning and possibilities to include the various opinions.

*in an ideal world* -guess I am still a bit idealistic

[brunota2003]

I like Stewart better...I like how he explains in detail what he thinks will happen and why...sure straight to the point is fine and dandy...but to someone like me who does not understand fully what they are talking about sometimes, that extra discussion helps...

[flashflood]

For me, Stewart's discussions are the best by far. I prefer details, details, the more the better, sometimes can't get enough actually. He does an outstanding job and I am sometimes really impressed with his extra effort, ideas and creativity. I also agree with JB, about how he praised Stewart's abilities during the talking tropics show.

I have no problems with Avila at all, and would not be surprised if he was rated at the top of his profession. I got used to his shorter to the point discussions over the years, but that's just not the style is prefer.

[Patrick99]

No disrespect to his knowledge, but I'm not a big fan of the Avila discussions. Just because you're writing an official weather statement doesn't mean you can't infuse it with some personality.

Franklin's "the forecaster, not the storm" thing last year was classic.

[DanKellFla]

I like all of them. But I won't admit it to other people that I have read so many discussions that I can now tell the difference between them. Although, my favorites are Franklins before a storm hits. His are just a bit more ..... warm?

[fci]

I think the "Statements" should be where the succint statements are placed and the "Discussions" should be were the discussion are placed.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I would think that a "discussion" should be the presentation of the conversation that was had between the pro staff regarding the current and future actions of a storm, to include the important points and justifications for why they believe it will do that.

If there is a consensus, then there can be a very short discussion, whihc only needs to point out a few facts. If there is not consensus, I would expect whoever writes it, to indicate even more track reasoning and possibilities to include the various opinions.

*in an ideal world* -guess I am still a bit idealistic

I think you nailed it.
Forecasts- to the point, no fluff; just the facts
Discussions- just what the word means; a discussion as if a conversation.